M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3) of the Act was completed on 28.12.2006 at an income of Rs.60,75,16,480/- by making addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of disallowance of advertisement expenses, Rs.8,48,033/- on account of foreign travel expenses, Rs.24,50,893/- on account of bad debts and Rs.27,98,173/- on account of repair and maintenance. Deduction under

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in which the sand transaction falls.” It is apparent that the reasons for issuing the notice u/s 154 as well as the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act are same to re-compute the deduction u/s 80IA after

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

u/s 143(3) of the Act.” 5.13 In the case of Replika Press Private Limited & ANR (supra), the assessment year involved is 2006-07 and the reassessment proceedings were initiated within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The said assessee was engaged in the business of printing of text books and in the original assessment deduction

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A & 234B is hereby rejected. The assessee application on the issue of quantum of interest under section 234C is acceptable as interest under section 234C is levied on return of income filed Maharashtra Feeds P Ltd. under section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A & 234B is hereby rejected. The assessee application on the issue of quantum of interest under section 234C is acceptable as interest under section 234C is levied on return of income filed Maharashtra Feeds P Ltd. under section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 154 of the Act" because the rectification proceedings has been concluded.” 4. The ground No. 1 being general in nature and would be covered by the other grounds of the appeal, therefore, same is not required to be adjudicated specifically. 5. The Ld. counsel filed a paper book in two volumes containing pages 1-165 and 1-216 respectively

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

u/s 147 of the Act. 27.9 Also mere information does not constitute to be a tangible material to reassess the assessee company without any independent enquiry or application of mind. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. G&G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 has held as under: “9. The Court

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISION TOWN PLANNERS PVT. LTD., NOIDA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

154 on 31.10.2013 was passed , wherein he has clearly stated that order passed under Section 153C should be read and treated as order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. This order of the Assessing Officer has attained finality from the stage of the Tribunal. Apart from that even in ground No. 5, the Revenue has challenged that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 R/W Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction?” 3. In order to appreciate the legal and factual points at issue in the present appeal, the facts attending this matter need to be marshalled at the outset. The respondent is a cooperative society manufacturing fertilizers. During the assessment year

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Ld. AO noted that, the assessee company was beneficiary of client code modification and the broker M/s Ashlar Commodities (P) Ltd. modified the name from original client M/s B B Portfolio (P) Ltd to the assessee company M/s Lasco P a g e | 3 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) Chemie

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the income was bad in law, for proviso to section 147 of the Act was applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, the original assessment was made under 3 SatyamurtiRamasundar A.Y. 2012-13 Section 143(3) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

TCG DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed and reassessment is quashed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishitcg Development India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 100, Ground Floor, Ward-16(1), Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- New Delhi Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaact2836J (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 parallelly when proceedings u/s 154 were pending on same issue and were not concluded especially when no fresh material /information was in possession of Learned Assessing officer. 4. The order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) is bad in law and against facts and circumstances of case and same has been passed in violation of principles of natural

THE KADIYAN COOP. L&C SOCIETY LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 80P(2) VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to invoke for mutual interest of employment.” 3. The appellant assessee is a cooperative society, which is primarily having object of promoting the economic interest of manual labourers by providing suitable and profitable employment to them by obtaining contract work from government or private. The assessee filed its return

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 of the Act for this assessment year as invalid and have confirmed the cancellation of the reassessment order, the return filed cannot be considered as revised return as the entire 22 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 proceedings are void-ab-initio and therefore, grounds of appeal raised on this score are dismissed. 38. Grounds no. 5 and 6 are general